The future of modern science, extinction?

  • Imagine you are sipping tea or coffee while discussing various issues with a broad and diverse network of students, colleagues, and friends brought together by the common bond of physics, graduate school, and the physics GRE.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:44 pm

So I'm sitting down here in Florida, just watched Discovery take off with my own eyes which is always cool. Still, at the same time it's sad. That will be Discovery's last flight, outside of some freak chance, and leaves only two more flights left. So here's my question I guess. Granted the economy is bad so this may be a bad time to ask, but given the fact that we really have no viable next stage do any of you see this as a sign of the end of the age of modern science? It seems like the world is perfectly fine with killing the flow of money to our sector, do you ever see it coming back? I know we all hear them talk a big game about funding science and technology and then go in the opposite direction. I'm just a little worried about our generation and those beyond not picking the torch back up and moving it along. Granted we'll still have scientists, but unfortunately we don't write the budget and we don't make up very many votes.

bfollinprm
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:44 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby bfollinprm » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:53 pm

NASA's budget wasn't cut to kill the shuttle program, they're just out of date.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:56 pm

I know, I'm talking about the next step, the next crafts. We don't have them, and really don't have plans to make any. That scares me, because that looks like the starting point for the rest of S&T funding.

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby HappyQuark » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:07 pm

midwestphysics wrote:So I'm sitting down here in Florida, just watched Discovery take off with my own eyes which is always cool. Still, at the same time it's sad. That will be Discovery's last flight, outside of some freak chance, and leaves only two more flights left. So here's my question I guess. Granted the economy is bad so this may be a bad time to ask, but given the fact that we really have no viable next stage do any of you see this as a sign of the end of the age of modern science? It seems like the world is perfectly fine with killing the flow of money to our sector, do you ever see it coming back? I know we all hear them talk a big game about funding science and technology and then go in the opposite direction. I'm just a little worried about our generation and those beyond not picking the torch back up and moving it along. Granted we'll still have scientists, but unfortunately we don't write the budget and we don't make up very many votes.


The death of modern science? Absolutely not.
The death of maned space flight? Maybe but probably not.

I'm not sure what makes you jump to the conclusion that all of modern science is going extinct because one program is being scaled back. Besides, I always thought that NASA got way more funding than they deserved, at least when considering all the areas of science that have way more potential for advancement.

bfollinprm
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:44 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby bfollinprm » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:09 pm

midwestphysics wrote:I know, I'm talking about the next step, the next crafts. We don't have them, and really don't have plans to make any. That scares me, because that looks like the starting point for the rest of S&T funding.



Well, we dont really need a vessel that can take people into space anymore; private companies are really good at getting satellites into orbit, and NASA is only needed for deep-space missions (where we haven't figured out the whole man on mars thing yet anyway).

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:25 pm

Well, I guess I'm not sold on the private sector yet. Still, I totally see where you both are coming from.

As for jumping to the conclusion that one program spells doom, I am and I'm not. NASA is arguably the poster child of scientific advancement, the average person tends to think of NASA when we talk in terms of large scale S&T. Granted it's a romantic, outdate, and even somewhat wrong view. Still seeing the things that are happening now makes me fear for the programs that don't get the spot light, those programs that most people don't know exist, but are no less important. It seems like this transition is happening with a whimper which worries me a bit.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:29 pm

Hopefully in the future all science will be privately funded. Along with everything else. If I don't care about spaceflight why should my taxes be spent on that? If I wanted to send a person to the center of the Earth would it be ok to make everyone else pay for it? You want something, pay for it yourself. Can't afford it? Tough luck.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:36 pm

I'm realizing NASA was bad example so forget about NASA or the shuttle because while I just watched it and it was what got me thinking it is not even a central point here really. What my original intention toward this post was to ask this. How do you feel about our generation and well those beyond us concerning that hunger for advancement? I mean, back in the 50's and 60's kids read sci-fi books, comics, played with toy rocket ships etc. Today they watch Jersey shore and fist pump lol, I'm exaggerating, but only a little bit. I'm worried about that need for knowledge in the ext 50 years. Put simply, do you agree? What direction do you see us going in? I'm looking for your view of the future of our field.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:47 pm

I frankly don't think the hunger for technology has ever been greater than it is now. Maybe people don't want rocket ships anymore, but those are pretty retarded and useless anyway. But when you think about computers, medicine, etc, I really don't know why you'd think it's all going downhill.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:49 pm

negru wrote:Hopefully in the future all science will be privately funded. Along with everything else. If I don't care about spaceflight why should my taxes be spent on that? If I wanted to send a person to the center of the Earth would it be ok to make everyone else pay for it? You want something, pay for it yourself. Can't afford it? Tough luck.


Yeah, not only would there exist no field, but how many people could afford to become scientists? You might be able to pay for your Phd, but we'd still be in the stone age if our best and brightest were not funded. Having seen some of your previous posts it's hard to believe you're a physics student. Just think about what your saying, if you believe that people pay for themselves your out of your mind. As an example if that were true or about to be true then insurance wouldn't exist, no house, car, or medical. And not just for poor people but anyone, because pooling of assets is the basis of insurance.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:53 pm

Well if people don't want to pay for stuff, why exactly should you force them to? If they'll die off in the stone age, fine, it's their problem. Other smarter people will pay for stuff and out survive them.

Also, look at the Perimeter Institute. It now has the best paid post-doc and faculty positions in theoretical physics, and they're all privately funded by some Canadian banks.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:00 pm

Also I don't get your point about insurance. Insurance is based on mutual agreement. What does being forced to pay for rocket ships to jupiter have to do with insurance? The fact that insurance exists actually proves my point: people are able and often willing to pool some money for mutual benefit, without being forced to do so.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:02 pm

You know what, I will actually agree with you on at least one thing now that I think about it. "IF" we can privately fund it,then that would be ideal. As for not wanting to pay for something. Most people don't want to pay taxes, insurance, bills for that matter. For example, I don't have kids nor do I ever plan to, should I not have to pay for schools? Of course I should because while they're not all that great now I don't need dumber people living around me. Should I not pay for the elderly, because while I'm not one I do see that they've earned it. I'm by no means a bleeding heart libral but neither am I blind to the fact that in a modern world we need each other and our assets. Because even the private side will run out of money and interest if we don't demand it, and on large scales.

As for insurance, well, where I'm from it's required by law.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:28 pm

midwestphysics wrote:As for insurance, well, where I'm from it's required by law.

Which is unconstitutional, but still, if people want insurance, they will buy it. If they don't, they'll suffer (maybe). Why do some people always have to assume they're smarter than everyone else and forcefully "take care" of the others. This is what is dumbing down the population. Not letting it make its decisions, and suffer the appropriate consequences. This is why in the future the government will be able to tell everyone what they should eat, what they should watch, what they should think, "for their own good". Oh wait, it's pretty much already doing that in various ways.

And yeah, the elderly have earned it, I agree. So, let them keep what they've earned and let them do what they want with it. Why forcefully ration their own earnings? Often with various government ponzi schemes

Dreaded Anomaly
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:13 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby Dreaded Anomaly » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:33 pm

Ah, libertarianism. I used to be a libertarian... then I graduated from high school.

Negru, I hope you've never worked on a research project funded by any government grants.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:36 pm

Dreaded Anomaly wrote:Ah, libertarianism. I used to be a libertarian... then I graduated from high school.

and that's why you should stay in school, kids!

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:38 pm

Dreaded Anomaly wrote:Negru, I hope you've never worked on a research project funded by any government grants.


Unfortunately I probably will soon enough. But alas, it's only part of my plan. One must first get inside the system in order to destroy it, no?

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:42 pm

negru wrote:
midwestphysics wrote:As for insurance, well, where I'm from it's required by law.

Which is unconstitutional, but still, if people want insurance, they will buy it. If they don't, they'll suffer (maybe). Why do some people always have to assume they're smarter than everyone else and forcefully "take care" of the others. This is what is dumbing down the population. Not letting it make its decisions, and suffer the appropriate consequences. This is why in the future the government will be able to tell everyone what they should eat, what they should watch, what they should think, "for their own good". Oh wait, it's pretty much already doing that in various ways.


I think we're talking about two different birds that look the same. Because in some places I agree with you but in other aspects I don't. I won't dive into it all because I don't want to continue to steer this discussion off course. Which is just to see what you all think of the future of S & T.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:48 pm

negru wrote:
Dreaded Anomaly wrote:Ah, libertarianism. I used to be a libertarian... then I graduated from high school.

and that's why you should stay in school, kids!


No actually let me guess you went to college somewhere in the NE after that

User avatar
WhoaNonstop
Posts: 851
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:31 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby WhoaNonstop » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:04 pm

negru wrote:No actually let me guess you went to college somewhere in the NE after that


NE is very republican. =P

-Riley

Dreaded Anomaly
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:13 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby Dreaded Anomaly » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:28 pm

In fact, I went to college and learned about the philosophy of John Rawls (the preeminent democratic philosopher of the 20th century), which thoroughly demonstrates how the libertarian conceptions of justice and rational self-interest are fatally flawed due to their naïveté in ignoring social interdependence and realistic economic demographics. In short, no person is an island.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:30 pm

What do you mean by fatally flawed? Is this one of those "common greater good" arguments?

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby HappyQuark » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:34 pm

Q: How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None, the free market will take care of it!

Libertarianism is a pipe dream turned into a political movement.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:40 pm

How the hell is libertarianism a pipe dream? Pipe dreams are any and all of the ideologies which come with some sort of that greater good propaganda. Why would it be so difficult to achieve? Just abolish all laws, and leave only the one which enforces contracts between parties. Voila libertarianism, and a stable one at that.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:52 pm

I definitely did not intend to open this can of worms but I'd be lying if I said I am not thoroughly entertained by it.

Dreaded Anomaly
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:13 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby Dreaded Anomaly » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:54 pm

negru wrote:What do you mean by fatally flawed? Is this one of those "common greater good" arguments?


No, the argument is that economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged. An arbitrary person has no reason to expect that they would benefit from economic inequalities in general (e.g. in a libertarian system), so the rational preference is to restrict such inequalities in order to limit their potential harm.

Any economic system is something in which people agree to participate, and people would not rationally agree to participate in a system that does not guarantee them some basic level of survival, given alternative systems that do.

negru wrote:How the hell is libertarianism a pipe dream? Pipe dreams are any and all of the ideologies which come with some sort of that greater good propaganda. Why would it be so difficult to achieve? Just abolish all laws, and leave only the one which enforces contracts between parties. Voila libertarianism, and a stable one at that.


A free market, left alone, tends toward monopolies and trusts, which concentrate economic and therefore political power. Stable? Maybe. Just? Definitely not.

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby HappyQuark » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:03 pm

negru wrote:How the hell is libertarianism a pipe dream? Pipe dreams are any and all of the ideologies which come with some sort of that greater good propaganda. Why would it be so difficult to achieve? Just abolish all laws, and leave only the one which enforces contracts between parties. Voila libertarianism, and a stable one at that.


When I said it was a pipe dream, I was referring to the impossibility of creating a stable and functional system by abolishing all laws and letting the economy work itself out. There is absolutely no evidence that such a system could possibly work and every argument given for libertarianism centers around how idiots think it ought to work. How do roads get built, how does public transportation get switched over to the private sector, what do we do for a fire department and police force, how do we create a privatized version of the FDA and when they fail to maintain acceptable minimum health standards, who holds them accountable for their failures?

Oh right, I almost forgot, the free market will take care of it.

Dreaded Anomaly
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:13 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby Dreaded Anomaly » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:05 pm

Why we need NASA to have manned space capability: Open letter: Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan urge Obama not to forfeit US progress in space exploration

Private companies are not yet at the point where they can reliably bring us into low Earth orbit. It will be great when they are, but expecting it now is unrealistic. As the letter states, we would be left relying primarily on the Russians; this should not sound like a good idea to anyone. Space travel is not "useless" to anyone who relies on any method of communication that uses satellites, i.e. all of us.
Last edited by Dreaded Anomaly on Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:13 pm

Dreaded Anomaly wrote:Private companies are not yet at the point where they can reliably bring us into low Earth orbit. It will be great when they are, but expecting it now is unrealistic. As the letter states, we would be left relying primarily on the Russians; this should not sound like a good idea to anyone. Space travel is not "useless" to anyone who relies on any method of communication that uses satellites, i.e. all of us.


When it comes to NASA I could not have said it better myself.

t2kburl
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby t2kburl » Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:00 pm

The US Constitution is a fundamentally libertarian document. Not that we live by it anymore. But I don't think America has passed the pipe. National socialism is a far worse idea.
Governments do not solve problems. Anyone that thinks they do needs to work for one to see how it operates.

However, there are fundamental things a society needs and governments are probably the best way to meet some of those needs.

Considering what is already in place, abandoning manned space flight is a really poor choice for NASA. They're good at it! The best there is! They do plenty of other science that needs to be supported as well.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:12 am

Dreaded Anomaly wrote:
negru wrote:What do you mean by fatally flawed? Is this one of those "common greater good" arguments?


No, the argument is that economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged. An arbitrary person has no reason to expect that they would benefit from economic inequalities in general (e.g. in a libertarian system), so the rational preference is to restrict such inequalities in order to limit their potential harm.

Well here is the problem. Why do economic inequalities have to be justified? I'm not saying this. I don't care about inequalities, and I don't think that the "goal" is to restrict or adjust these inequalities in any way.


A free market, left alone, tends toward monopolies and trusts, which concentrate economic and therefore political power. Stable? Maybe. Just? Definitely not.

Again, what do you mean by "just"? By "just" I'd understand that every man is responsible only for he does, and no one else. And what's wrong with monopolies or trusts? If you create some product that only you can make, is there something so evil in selling it? Yeah, you'll have a monopoly. So? Would you want the government to come along and say, yo man, how come only you can make that thing? tell these other guys how to make it too!


Also, I never denied people the right to re-associate themselves in a state, with whatever form of government they wish. However, they should all associate by mutual consent, and without forcing anyone else to join. Currently, that's not how it works. The whole idea of a social contract is retarded, and these half ass philosophers, starting with that dimwit Rousseau, are retarded. Yeah, social, contract, very nice, very clever. Only one problem with it: I never signed this goddamn contract! And if I break it I go to jail or am shot.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:21 am

Regarding inequalities, I'd still argue that the more freedom everyone has the better it will be for everyone, in some strange and ill-defined way, but it is beyond the point. Even if libertarianism lead to a total meltdown of society and the human race would go extinct, I'd still support it, as a matter of principle. Individual freedoms should never be pushed aside, not even in the face of global calamity. If they do, that's just gonna open the door for other, this time political, calamities.


Also, I realize that the secular liberal man really misses god and tries to fill the gap with himself looking out for mankind and making decisions in its place, but personally I find that very presumptuous and demeaning of human value and "supposed"emergence from the dark ages. The Inquisition tried to forcefully save people, have we learned nothing? Principle-wise, I mean, not technologically or rhetorically. The problem with the Inquisition wasn't that it based its actions on faulty arguments and was too extreme. The problem was that it took in its hands a power it should never have had, no matter its goals or justifications. Even if it really did have the best of intents.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:38 am

negru wrote:Even if libertarianism lead to a total meltdown of society and the human race would go extinct, I'd still support it, as a matter of principle.


Therein lays the end of any and all reason. If a person’s principles are beyond the concept of personal evolution, in any direction, and they reserve themselves to the belief that everything else can be destroyed in its preservation if necessary. Well, then they have created within themselves the singular destructive force that will be the end of the object or belief they look to protect. Without the human race your libertarianism would cease to exist as well. You sound like the kind of person that if given a dollar, and told you would get ten for yourself if you gave that one dollar to charity, would set the dollar on fire out of some twisted principle. Sacrificing the world for principle is not noble, if it was we'd talk very highly of the efforts of Hitler, and I don't know about you but I'm no fan of his.

Adarsh
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:11 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby Adarsh » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:46 am

negru wrote:I don't care about inequalities


Why not?

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:49 am

Adarsh wrote:
negru wrote:I don't care about inequalities


Why?


My thoughts exactly! Like I said, I'm a no bleeding heart, but it takes are very odd person to not care even a little bit about the people around them. It's for lack of a better word egocentric.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:51 am

Adarsh wrote:
negru wrote:I don't care about inequalities


Why not?

Because I'm not responsible for them. The fact that one person X has less money than Y does not mean the whole world will have to plot and scheme to equalize their amounts. Now, if Y feels like X should get some more money, he is free to donate his own. But not go around and force everyone else to do it too. Because, you know, maybe different people care about different things. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if some robber comes into house, steals your money, and then spends it on something he cares about.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:54 am

midwestphysics wrote:
Adarsh wrote:
negru wrote:I don't care about inequalities


Why?


My thoughts exactly! Like I said, I'm a no bleeding heart, but it takes are very odd person to not care even a little bit about the people around them. It's for lack of a better word egocentric.


Well, why don't you care about the person you're taking the money from? Maybe he worked very hard for it, and was saving to pay his relative's medical treatment, or send his children to college. Aren't these humans too? Why does it seem more fair to you take money from an innocent person, then to not give money to some other innocent person? Who are you to decide who needs the money more?

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:57 am

And stop mixing your own feelings with what you believe is right. You know, maybe I like dogs, and would like each dog to receive lots of medical attention. Should I go around and force everyone to pay for this? Or maybe I care more about elder people than the average person. Should I go around forcing everyone to gve twice as much as did usually did for elderly people?

I care about something, I pay for it. everyone else can do what they want.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:12 am

negru wrote:And stop mixing your own feelings with what you believe is right. You know, maybe I like dogs, and would like each dog to receive lots of medical attention. Should I go around and force everyone to pay for this? Or maybe I care more about elder people than the average person. Should I go around forcing everyone to gve twice as much as did usually did for elderly people?

I care about something, I pay for it. everyone else can do what they want.


It's amazing how you so easily miss the cornerstones of the concept of society. It is as you've said a system of mutual agreement. In our case it is the mutual agreements created by the officials elected to represent us. My original post intended to gage everyone else's thoughts on how the future generations will see S & T. Will they seek to fund it, or will they let knowledge wane? No matter what though, by living here I'm given the right to challenge their agreement, but not to disregard it. That is the mutual agreement we all accept.

So why don't we just jump off all this crap, and get back to the point.


Edit:
negru wrote:And stop mixing your own feelings with what you believe is right.


Is it just me or am I right that what he said there makes no sense?
Last edited by midwestphysics on Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby HappyQuark » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:15 am

negru wrote:
Dreaded Anomaly wrote:
negru wrote:What do you mean by fatally flawed? Is this one of those "common greater good" arguments?


No, the argument is that economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged. An arbitrary person has no reason to expect that they would benefit from economic inequalities in general (e.g. in a libertarian system), so the rational preference is to restrict such inequalities in order to limit their potential harm.

Well here is the problem. Why do economic inequalities have to be justified? I'm not saying this. I don't care about inequalities, and I don't think that the "goal" is to restrict or adjust these inequalities in any way.


The strange part about all of this is that your initial argument was that the current system was unjust and now suddenly you are saying that being just isn't necessary. Whether you phrase it this way or not, your argument in essence is "it is unjust for that which I earn to be spent on things that I don't want them to be spent on."

So let me flip the question on you. Why should we care whether it is just to give you a choice in where some of your money goes? Why should we feel any obligation to ask you how you want your money spent?


A free market, left alone, tends toward monopolies and trusts, which concentrate economic and therefore political power. Stable? Maybe. Just? Definitely not.

Again, what do you mean by "just"? By "just" I'd understand that every man is responsible only for he does, and no one else. And what's wrong with monopolies or trusts? If you create some product that only you can make, is there something so evil in selling it? Yeah, you'll have a monopoly. So? Would you want the government to come along and say, yo man, how come only you can make that thing? tell these other guys how to make it too!


Yes, we want the government to stop people from monopolizing fields, products and services. Not just because the company has an uncontrollable ability to manipulate prices but also because that company has the money and resources to takeover other industries and monopolize those. Libertarians foolishly believe that if we let monopolies occur, a guy in his shed will pull himself up by his boot straps and invent some great product that outdoes the company and in this sense monopolies inspire stronger competition. In reality, a country that allowed monopolies would be owned by Wal-mart and Google and any attempt challenge their domination of the market would result in millions of dollars worth of R&D and PR to maintain their position, which they have at their disposal.

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby HappyQuark » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:22 am

negru wrote:Regarding inequalities, I'd still argue that the more freedom everyone has the better it will be for everyone, in some strange and ill-defined way, but it is beyond the point. Even if libertarianism lead to a total meltdown of society and the human race would go extinct, I'd still support it, as a matter of principle. Individual freedoms should never be pushed aside, not even in the face of global calamity. If they do, that's just gonna open the door for other, this time political, calamities.


Out of curiosity, if you get robbed or assaulted would you turn down the help of the police force since it's a government institution funded by the American tax system? If your house is on fire, do you send the firemen home? Do you walk everywhere or do you take advantage of DoT created/maintained roadworks? Did you turn down student loans, government grants for tuition or research?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this 'let the world burn down for the principle of it' crap your trying to sell.

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby HappyQuark » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:34 am

negru wrote:
midwestphysics wrote:
Adarsh wrote:
Why?


My thoughts exactly! Like I said, I'm a no bleeding heart, but it takes are very odd person to not care even a little bit about the people around them. It's for lack of a better word egocentric.


Well, why don't you care about the person you're taking the money from? Maybe he worked very hard for it, and was saving to pay his relative's medical treatment, or send his children to college. Aren't these humans too? Why does it seem more fair to you take money from an innocent person, then to not give money to some other innocent person? Who are you to decide who needs the money more?


I hope, for your sake, that you are just playing dumb. The reason nobody feels bad about taking other peoples money through taxes is because, in general, the system is constructed in such a way that we aren't taking money from people who can't stand to lose a small amount of it. If we were forcibly taking money from a poor starving widowed mother and her 5 kids who are barely eeking through life, then that would be a real tragedy and we should all feel bad about that. That isn't happening though so your point is moot.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:36 am

midwestphysics wrote:Edit:
negru wrote:And stop mixing your own feelings with what you believe is right.


Is it just me or am I right that what he said there makes no sense?

If it makes no sense to you it truly means you don't have any sense of objectivity. What you feel and what you think should not always be the same. For example, I feel sorry for people with cancer, but I don't think it would be right to take 80% of everyone's income to pay for a treatment. See?


About people we elected...I didn't elect the people in charge, and no one asked if I want someone in power in the first place. Respecting the rules of a game is fine, as long you agreed to play the game. No asked me if I want to play this game. There is virtually no way out, and there shouldn't be any reason for me to leave or anything. As long as I'm on my private property, i shouldn't have to give a damn on whether Obama, Bush or anyone else is president. They may be president, but they don't OWN the land.


About monopoly, so it doesn't seem fair to you for anyone to be able to set the price they want on their products? Say you want to sell that golden locket you have from your long deceased mother which you loved very much. You're saying it would be right for the government to step in if you charge too much for it? This is technically a case of monopoly. If you always have to identify monopolies with evil walmarts asking for organs and first born to give the only water left on earth, that's your problem.



As for why we should even ask people what they want to do with their money, it's simple, it's the principle I am suggesting, I'm not sure I can derive it from anywhere. It's the only principle which I found to lead to consistent societies. You can in fact it is the only fair principle, if you want a property of fairness to be consistency

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby HappyQuark » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:39 am

negru wrote:And stop mixing your own feelings with what you believe is right. You know, maybe I like dogs, and would like each dog to receive lots of medical attention. Should I go around and force everyone to pay for this? Or maybe I care more about elder people than the average person. Should I go around forcing everyone to gve twice as much as did usually did for elderly people?

I care about something, I pay for it. everyone else can do what they want.


And this is the crux of your problem and, apparently, why you don't understand the concept of the social contract. The entire point behind all of that voting we do in democracies is an attempt to determine what we all roughly agree ought to be our priorities. If caring for a single dog was unanimously agreed to be of supreme importance by most americans then you can bet we would be spending tax dollars on it. Your hypothetical sounds as ridiculous as it does, not because democracy is a flawed system but because you don't understand how governments are structured, let alone how a democratic system works.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:42 am

Let me rephrase what I just deleted. Before our independence we operated on a system that involved monopolization, of power, money, and religious beliefs. We fought a war to end that, and what we created was a society where all people are common and those people agree on how things are run, that is the entire basis of our system and nothing else. Every other piece can be changed, but to do so we must agree to the change, or rather elect representatives to carry our voice for us. To state it once again, my question dealt with how the "people" will deal with science in the future. You came out here with some crazy right wing crap that is idealized and has no basis in reality because it lacks the agreement of the people.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:42 am

HappyQuark wrote:
negru wrote:Regarding inequalities, I'd still argue that the more freedom everyone has the better it will be for everyone, in some strange and ill-defined way, but it is beyond the point. Even if libertarianism lead to a total meltdown of society and the human race would go extinct, I'd still support it, as a matter of principle. Individual freedoms should never be pushed aside, not even in the face of global calamity. If they do, that's just gonna open the door for other, this time political, calamities.


Out of curiosity, if you get robbed or assaulted would you turn down the help of the police force since it's a government institution funded by the American tax system? If your house is on fire, do you send the firemen home? Do you walk everywhere or do you take advantage of DoT created/maintained roadworks? Did you turn down student loans, government grants for tuition or research?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this 'let the world burn down for the principle of it' crap your trying to sell.

Well, I'm already paying for all of these services through taxes so I might as well make use of them, no? However, I would like to be given the option of opting out. I personally might not, but maybe others would. This argument isn't about me, it's about what some people, in some part of the country, would like to do.


[quote] in general, the system is constructed in such a way that we aren't taking money from people who can't stand to lose a small amount of it.[\quote]
Here is that greater common good. How do you know who can and who can't stand to lose any amount of money? Say you have two people. One needs an arm, to work, masturbate, hold hands with his wife, the other needs a leg, to be able to go pee on his own, run in the park with his beautiful fiancee, and play football with his son. How do you decide who needs the transplant more? What would be the greater common good?

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby midwestphysics » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:45 am

About people we elected...I didn't elect the people in charge, and no one asked if I want someone in power in the first place. Respecting the rules of a game is fine, as long you agreed to play the game. No asked me if I want to play this game. There is virtually no way out, and there shouldn't be any reason for me to leave or anything. As long as I'm on my private property, i shouldn't have to give a damn on whether Obama, Bush or anyone else is president. They may be president, but they don't OWN the land.


And now we get to the point of it all. You're pissed you were ever born, and mad that the world isn't what YOU thought it should be.

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby HappyQuark » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:53 am

negru wrote:About people we elected...I didn't elect the people in charge, and no one asked if I want someone in power in the first place. Respecting the rules of a game is fine, as long you agreed to play the game. No asked me if I want to play this game. There is virtually no way out, and there shouldn't be any reason for me to leave or anything. As long as I'm on my private property, i shouldn't have to give a damn on whether Obama, Bush or anyone else is president. They may be president, but they don't OWN the land.


But a democracy isn't about asking you specifically what you want and then automatically giving it to you. It's about asking what the majority of the people and want and giving it to them, provided it doesn't infringe on fundamental rights. You live in a democracy, you utilize the services it provides and this is regarded by everyone as your implicit acceptance of the system.


negru wrote:About monopoly, so it doesn't seem fair to you for anyone to be able to set the price they want on their products? Say you want to sell that golden locket you have from your long deceased mother which you loved very much. You're saying it would be right for the government to step in if you charge too much for it? This is technically a case of monopoly. If you always have to identify monopolies with evil walmarts asking for organs and first born to give the only water left on earth, that's your problem.


If my friend and I are stuck in traffic and he's hungry, I could offer to sell him my candy bar for twice the price I purchased it from. This is technically a monopoly but this is obviously not what we are talking about. Also, you can't make laws based on the premise that it occasionally wouldn't be a problem. If it can and will be twist the economy into a powder keg then you create laws to stop that. If that means that you are unable to create a dead mother golden locket monopoly then tough ***. Fortunately, these kind of unimportant monopolies that you are complaining about don't ever actually run into problems.

negru wrote:As for why we should even ask people what they want to do with their money, it's simple, it's the principle I am suggesting, I'm not sure I can derive it from anywhere. It's the only principle which I found to lead to consistent societies. You can in fact it is the only fair principle, if you want a property of fairness to be consistency


You'd have to actually cite some evidence that shows that economies and societies flourish when only one law is created and that it is to let people have uncontrolled wealth because I don't buy it for a second. Additionally, it was your suggestion that justification for equality wasn't necessary, so by your own logic we shouldn't we feel obligated to treat everyone equal in terms of their earnings? Why should we let things "fall where they may" and give everyone equal opportunity to accumulate maximum wealth? Your own beliefs on the matter are in conflict.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby negru » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:55 am

midwestphysics wrote:And now we get to the point of it all. You're pissed you were ever born, and mad that the world isn't what YOU thought it should be.
I am debating about various ways in which a society may function, trying to expose my opinion on what would be a consistent system which maximizes personal freedom. If you can't have a normal discussion, based on arguments, examples, analogies, hopefully as extreme as possible since that's the only place you can really check for consistency, that's a shame, but I don't really care if you think I'm pissed I was born. Yeah I am pissed that the constitution doesn't mean anything anymore, and that people never think about principles and the fairness of various actions, but limit themselves to the ol'time liberal college favorite "if it feels good, it must be right and thus accomplished"

User avatar
HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Postby HappyQuark » Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:02 am

negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote:
negru wrote:Regarding inequalities, I'd still argue that the more freedom everyone has the better it will be for everyone, in some strange and ill-defined way, but it is beyond the point. Even if libertarianism lead to a total meltdown of society and the human race would go extinct, I'd still support it, as a matter of principle. Individual freedoms should never be pushed aside, not even in the face of global calamity. If they do, that's just gonna open the door for other, this time political, calamities.


Out of curiosity, if you get robbed or assaulted would you turn down the help of the police force since it's a government institution funded by the American tax system? If your house is on fire, do you send the firemen home? Do you walk everywhere or do you take advantage of DoT created/maintained roadworks? Did you turn down student loans, government grants for tuition or research?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this 'let the world burn down for the principle of it' crap your trying to sell.

Well, I'm already paying for all of these services through taxes so I might as well make use of them, no? However, I would like to be given the option of opting out. I personally might not, but maybe others would. This argument isn't about me, it's about what some people, in some part of the country, would like to do.


You are missing the point. You argued that the principle of the issue is of primary importance and that you would let the world end before allowing important principles be violated. So explain to me why you'd let the world be destroyed over principle but you when it comes down to your own daily activities, you ignore the principle you claim to live by, that taking part in tax funded institutions is bad, and utilize the police, fire, roads, military, health care, student loans, grants, libraries, research funding. It sounds to me like you are just in love with the romantic notion of martyrdom for an idealistic system but when push comes to shove you just do what's easy. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


in general, the system is constructed in such a way that we aren't taking money from people who can't stand to lose a small amount of it.[\quote]
Here is that greater common good. How do you know who can and who can't stand to lose any amount of money? Say you have two people. One needs an arm, to work, masturbate, hold hands with his wife, the other needs a leg, to be able to go pee on his own, run in the park with his beautiful fiancee, and play football with his son. How do you decide who needs the transplant more? What would be the greater common good?


Again, you are quite ignorant of how the system works. The amount of taxes you pay, if you have to pay any at all, is determined by your yearly earnings, dependencies, etc. Have you never filled your taxes before? How do you not realize that your taxes were directly determined by the amount of money you have? How could you possibly be this confused?
Last edited by HappyQuark on Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:04 am, edited 2 times in total.




Return to “Physics Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest